Simple Examples of Irreducible Complexity - Evolution Impossible

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Garbage analysis.

Stick with the conversation. Argue the science. Don't resort to insult when you're backed up against a wall. Your link showed nothing except further irreducible complexity at the micromolecular level.

You said the microtubules self-assemble, but they actually require GTP-hydrolysis, and also the availability of tubulin dimers to assemble into the polymer form:



These dimers require a DNA coding sequence to cue for mRNA formation, followed by tRNA transcription. These are the irreducibly complex parts of even the most basic protein structures.

a reply to: cooperton

Ding Ding, and round one goes to cooperton with Phantom struggling to stay in the fight with any reasonable counters, lets see if he can bring it in round 2.

a reply to: cooperton

More garbage. You pick and choose whatever you think validates your point. It doesn't.
Garbage.

a reply to: cooperton

Looks pretty complex... and you don't understand how it is reducible, so must be god... ahhh... Appeal to Complexity much?

lol... literally every single post... "It's too complex to happen naturally!"... lol... I think there may be a scratch on your internal record... may be a scratch on your internal record... may be a scratch on your internal record... maybe a scratch...

So... if not natural, how did god make it then? You should be able to show the mechanisms god used... show where natural process breaks down, and see the tinker's tool-marks. Can you point me to where god steps in and magics us up some new systems?

Showing a picture of a complex system is not proving god's workshop.

a reply to: Phantom423

And Phantom throws in the white towel with no counters to the science presented by Cooperton....after he asked for it.
It was a good match but we have a winner.

a reply to: puzzlesphere

You should be able to show the mechanisms god used... show where natural process breaks down, and see the tinker's tool-marks

You can, it's called math and with things like Fibonacci numbers and the Golden Ratio embedded within that.


A great non religious video on this from TED


A great science based video


This video is very interesting and says there is a true conspiracy to suppress the science of the golden ratio because it lends to much credibility to intelligent design....I might make a thread on this entire subject.


Watch these three videos and you have your answer.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

More garbage. You pick and choose whatever you think validates your point.
It doesn't.
Garbage.

No no no, I don't pick and choose, you chose to bring up microtubules. I am simply showing, from your link, why it requires other factors to be in play, and therefore does not 'self-assemble' without the guidance of the rest of necessary proteins and catalysts present within the cell. So this is another example of irreducible complexity due to the reasons said above.

Literally every protein component in the body exhibits this same dependence on other components to exist. You also brought up the 'self-assembly' of myosin. The paper you presented was from 1972 and you didn't even have access to it. More recent research no longer calls it 'self-assembly', instead they more accurately call it 'assembly'. Here is their description of myosin formation:

"Myofibrillogenesis in striated muscle cells requires a precise ordered pathway to assemble different proteins into a linear array of sarcomeres. The sarcomere relies on interdigitated thick and thin filaments to ensure muscle contraction, as well as properly folded and catalytically active myosin head. Achieving this organization requires a series of protein folding and assembly steps. The folding of the myosin head domain requires chaperone activity to attain its functional conformation. Folded or unfolded myosin can spontaneously assemble into short myosin filaments, but further assembly requires the short and incomplete myosin filaments to assemble into the developing thick filament. These longer filaments are then incorporated into the developing sarcomere of the muscle. Both myosin folding and assembly require factors to coordinate the formation of the thick filament in the sarcomere and these factors include chaperone molecules. Myosin folding and sarcomeric assembly requires association of classical chaperones as well as folding cofactors such as UNC-45. Recent research has suggested that UNC-45 is required beyond initial myosin head folding and may be directly or indirectly involved in different stages of myosin thick filament assembly, maintenance and degradation."
Source

Notice how in the quote above they discuss the multitude of steps and other proteins involved in forming one of the many proteins involved in muscle formation. This shows it could not have arisen by piece-by-piece sequential mutations via evolution, because it requires all necessary components to function.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

Ding Ding, and round one goes to cooperton with Phantom struggling to stay in the fight with any reasonable counters, lets see if he can bring it in round 2.

LMFAO!! Gotta love the ignorant cheerleaders in here cheering for Hovind. Fail to grasp the science that was referenced and then declare victory. It doesn't get any stupider than that.

I predicted Coop would ignore everything I posted, and no surprise, it happened. Not a single piece of evidence or point I made can be refuted. You guys are a clown show. It's like first graders that just learned addition and subtraction trying to argue against calculus. It's comically bad and pretentious.

a reply to: cooperton

When an organic brain with the span of 50 or so years tries to fathom 4 billion years of evolution...... think about it.
The Earth has been here 80.000.000 times the amount of time your brain will be here, yet you question evolution....?

Life on Earth has been adjusting itself since day 1 and still is. One could even argue that climate changes are more about Earth rerolling balance and us trying to cope with it. Earth will be here after we are gone.

There is absolutely no reason why a mosquito or skunk couldnt evolve these things little by little over 100s of thousand years or more.
Heck... even bacteria has evolve since we invented penicilin and found a way to mutate to become resistant. Thats evolution right in your face, even over a short time span.

originally posted by: flice

Heck... even bacteria has evolve since we invented penicilin and found a way to mutate to become resistant. Thats evolution right in your face, even over a short time span.

No that was an assumption by the scientific community. If you take a antibiotic-resistant germ line, and remove the antibiotic, the germ line very quickly resumes normalcy and becomes vulnerable to antibiotics again. It is not evolution, it is epigenetics, or in other words, turning certain genes higher or lower. Take for example the detox pump present in this study. The gene that coded for this detox pump was turned up higher to allow antibiotic-resistance, and then when the antibiotic was removed, it went down to baseline levels and was no longer antibiotic resistant:

Source

"Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium."

originally posted by: Barcs

I predicted Coop would ignore everything I posted, and no surprise, it happened.

Your post had no substance whatsoever. Just you self-aggrandizing yourself, and belittling others. I'm done responding to your childish responses.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

I don't have a clue what you're talking about - and neither do you. Biogenesis? Science NEVER said any of these things.

And you accuse me of not knowing or understanding, too funny.

Biogenesis is any process by which lifeforms produce other lifeforms. For example, a spider lays eggs that become other spiders. This premise historically contrasted with the ancient belief in spontaneous generation, which held that certain inorganic substances, left alone, give rise to life (such as bacteria, mice and maggots) in a matter of days. The premise of biogenesis had been suspected long before being definitively demonstrated.

I am sorry your elite education never taught you the difference between Biogenesis and Abiogenesis, you paid good money for it....it should have taught you that. But maybe the professors presumed you already knew from your high school education so they left it out of the curriculum. I highly recommend a simple high school coarse on biology that includes a module on the biology of Biogenesis.

Science has NEVER claimed that Life on Earth STARTED by Life on Earth producing 'other' lifeforms.

I'm sorry your 'education' did not teach you to distinguish one concept from another.

a reply to: cooperton

No that was an assumption by the scientific community. If you take a antibiotic-resistant germ line, and remove the antibiotic, the germ line very quickly resumes normalcy and becomes vulnerable to antibiotics again.

So you are saying that all we need to do is stop using Penicillin for a few years and it will be good to go again? So how many antibiotics do you reckon we need to keep them in rotation?

a reply to: cooperton

It is not evolution, it is epigenetics

Interesting and a good call to classify what is actually happening.

originally posted by: rnaa

So you are saying that all we need to do is stop using Penicillin for a few years and it will be good to go again? So how many antibiotics do you reckon we need to keep them in rotation?

That's why doctors have rotations of antibiotics. But it doesn't even take years. In studies determining antibiotic resistance, the epigenetic markers resume normal and the germ line becomes vulnerable to the antibiotic in just a few generations of the microbial population.

"Another important observation is that this resistance is highly reversible. When the antibiotic is removed from the environment, the population becomes sensitive again after a few generations "
source

Populations adapt, but they do not evolve. If they were evolving, it would not be so quickly reversible as exhibited in the lab.

a reply to: cooperton

There are no "other factors in play" here. Self assembly is a fundamental process of nature. There are hundreds of articles on self assembly from basic nucleic acids to entire biological structures.

You make it up as you go along, post a lot of garbage and then expect no one to notice. As Barcs said, and as many of us have said dozens of times, YOU IGNORE THE EVIDENCE so you don't have to deal with it.

The challenge is still on: Pick a research paper from a peer-reviewed journal that discusses self assembly of a biological molecule or structure and discuss why it's wrong.

My prediction: You won't respond. You never do. You continue to post irrelevant garbage without ever addressing the real research which is done in a lab, vetted by contemporaries and peer reviewed upon publication. Where are the publications that support your posts? You don't have any. You pick and choose anything that looks like it could snooker someone - but what you forget is that many of us have experience and a bunch of letters after our names. We respect honesty in science and practice ethical standards in our labs. We are ready, willing and able to smother people like you who fake it because you don't deserve a pulpit for your garbage.

So as a famous man once said: "Bring it on". Substantiate your claims with evidence that has been vetted and published in peer-reviewed journals.
Describe your laboratory experiments. Why is "complexity" so complex? Why is it impossible to know how things work, how they develop, and how the knowledge is passed on. You can't answer any of these questions.

There's another challenge from a long time ago on this board which, once again (no mystery here), no one picked up: Let's go over to the Debate Board and have a moderated debate on evolution. Everyone bring their "stuff" i.e. evidence, and let's go for it. I won't hold my breath..........

I have a list of unanswered posts from several years. I'm sure that Barcs, Peter and few more have a list as well. Who knows - those lists may show up in a sticky post on this board one day......................

a reply to: Phantom423

You make it up as you go along, post a lot of garbage

I disagree, "one man's garbage is another man's treasure" is an idiom that is in play here, I know many people are watching this thread because PM come to me telling me. Your aggressive bullying tactics make them scared to post, but that's ok, coop and me will carry that flag into battle for everybody. We post for them, not for you, they can see your elitism and ignoring logical points that Coop bring up by just saying "it's garbage". But not why it's wrong...showing a clear bias.

For example epigenetics is not "garbage" but a field of science. Biogenesis is another field of science you said you have no clue about earlier in this thread. At the very least your are being disingenuous within this thread.

originally posted by: cooperton

Do you have any lab data that shows that complex organ systems can develop synchronously over millenia? Like real empirical evidence to prove that? I know you don't have any. It is a faith based assumption.

Faith means you have zero proof of anything and that you do not need proof. The more proof you desire or have the less faith you need. If you actually studied any of this you would realize evolution is a done deal. What Darwin wrote about is basically very surface level observations of it all, but is barely 1% of what we know today. His work was extremely note worthy, but had a good amount of intelligent assumptions and there was a good amount that he got wrong.

You can look at insects and see real time evolution since they evolve quickly. There are 14,000+ species of ants and 360,000+ species of beetles. The true reality of evolution is life was very stagnate at extremely simple levels for almost 4 billion years and then we got our first predatory microbes and the arms race started between predator and prey. This is what has driven evolution for the last 600 million years..

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

"one man's garbage is another man's treasure"

Says someone who knows zip as to how science works, has never accomplished any research, knows nothing about what a scientist does.

Come back when they nominate you for the Nobel Prize in............ jeez, I don't know what.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You can look at insects and see real time evolution since they evolve quickly.

I am glad you brought that up, there is documented empirical scientific evidence that has been done with fruit fly's.
They were heavily experimented with to prove evolution, but the opposite happened.
Because they live and die so quickly you can have 100's of generations go by very fast. When they experimented with them mutating them they either failed to reproduce or the RNA/DNA self corrected. They eventually reverted back to original form or the generations were so deviated they could no longer continue the line and died out. Either way the fruit fly never was able to sustain mutational change defeating the attempt to make them evolve.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

am glad you brought that up, there is documented empirical scientific evidence that has been done with fruit fly's.
They were heavily experimented with to prove evolution, but the opposite happened.

I also am glad it was brought up. Please post all the citations with regard to these experiments - all of them, not just the ones you endorse.

Post all the citations, which number approximately 24, about these experiments. Then we'll discuss it. Agreed?